Gabi,
No second attempt - don't know what the first was? We'll be doing a new instrumental
data
set (surprisingly called HadCRUT3), but that's it at the moment.
Attached is a good review of corals - just out.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 10/08/2004 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote:

Hi Mike and Phil,
Thanks! Yes, factor 1.29 will get me closer to my best guess scaling (factor 1.6 to
same-size signals).
The scaling is a tough issue, and I think there are lots of possibilities to do it
depending on what one wants
to do. For comparing underlying forced signals, I think tls is best. To get a
conservative size paleo reconstruction
(like what part of instrumental do we reconstruct with paleo), the traditional scaling
is best.
I'll write up what Myles and I have been thinking and send it.
Phil, if there is a second attempt at that with the Hadley Centre, let me know, I don't
like racing anybody!
Gabi
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I've attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for
doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are
likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so
best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want
to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but
don't pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not
necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the 'long' NH
instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated in the following paper:
* Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [1]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.

(based on the sparse available long instrumental records) to set the scale for the
decadal standard deviation of the proxy composite. Not sure why I used this, rather than
using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. It looks like I had two similarly
named series floating around in the code, and used perhaps the less preferable one for
setting the scale.
Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction
by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
This may explain part of what perplexed Gabi when she was comparing w/ the instrumental
series. I've attached the version of the reconstruction where the NH is scaled by the
CRU NH record instead, as well as the Matlab code which you're welcome to try to use
yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases the amplitude of the
reconstruction everywhere by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more in line w/ what Gabi
was estimating (Gabi?)
Anyway, doesn't make a major difference, but you might want to take this into account in
any further use of the Mann and Jones series...
Phil: is this worth a followup note to GRL, w/ a link to the Matlab code?
Mike
p.s. Gabi: when do you and Tom plan to publish your NH reconstruction that now goes back
about 1500 years or so? It would be nice to have more independent reconstructions
published in the near future! Maybe I missed this? Thanks...
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [2]mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml